COMMISSION TO CONSIDER TOXIC LIST PLAN

Palm Beach County residents may soon be the only Floridians who can learn whether businesses they work for or live near file state-mandated lists of hazardous substances they use.

The information would become available under a proposed county "Right-to- Know" ordinance, whose final draft was agreed upon last week after seven months of discussion by the Florida Consumer Federation and the Palm Beach County Health Department.

"Now there can be a way of figuring out whether someone is complying with the state statute," said attorney Raymond Rea, representing the federation.

A public rally on the proposed ordinance, the only one of its kind in Florida, is planned for Wednesday in downtown West Palm Beach.

The issue will be taken to the County Commission for consideration in the next two to three weeks, said federation spokeswoman Robin Thomas. Commissioner Jerry Owens has said he intends to sponsor a county "Right-to- Know" proposal.

In part, the ordinance states: "The people of Palm Beach County have a right to information concerning toxic substances they could potentially be exposed to (working or living near) a facility engaged in the use, production, storage or disposal of toxic substances.

"A central location for . . . information concerning locally used, produced or stored toxic substances would be of benefit to (residents) who need to make decisions concerning the potential health risk of living or working in proximity to these . . . facilities."

The proposal was drafted to help enforce a state "Right-to-Know" statute that became effective last October, requiring employers to notify workers whether any of 1,376 hazardous substances are used.

Health Department official Frank J. Gargiulo, while endorsing the county proposal last week, warned it would be by no means a panacea to the problems of hazardous substance exposure.

"It's important to recognize that even if the County Commission adopts this, there are still some serious limitations," he said. "I don't want the public's expectations raised too high."

Primarily, he said, the county could not regulate companies that may be endangering workers' health, but simply would be able to disseminate data identifying such employers.

The ordinance would, however, empower the Health Department to begin an investigation within 48 hours if a worker or neighbor can prove his health, safety and welfare is in jeopardy because of hazardous materials.

Before department investigators could enter a workplace, they might need a court order finding probable cause, Rea said.

Another limitation to the ordinance, said Gargiulo, is that it would give the department no way to force companies to file complete lists of hazardous materials.

"The law has no teeth in getting the employer to submit the information," he said. "We may be left with an ordinance, but with no information."

Rea, however, sees the long-term effect in a more positive light.

Under the ordinance, the Health Department would issue an annual report identifying cases in which toxic materials have been used, citing any problems and their resolutions.

Moreover, Rea said, it would allow the public to see which companies had not filed any substance lists at all.

The information could help residents who suspect they are suffering from chemical-related illnesses, Thomas said. It also would give doctors treating such patients another place to turn.

Under the ordinance, all the data would be collected by the county Fire- Rescue Service and the 37 municipal fire departments, then pooled into a repository at the Health Department. It would be open to public inspection.

By comparison, the state law provides for no central place where information can be disseminated. A consumer would have to hop from one fire department to the next to get a full picture of a potential problem, said Rea.

Furthermore, the state plan does not guarantee the data is accessible. Earlier this month, for example, county officials released such records only after a circuit court judge ruled that such information should be made public.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the News and Sun-Sentinel Co., publishers of the News/Sun-Sentinel.